Defendant council failed to take sufficient steps to
prevent erosion of their land.
As result, part of plaintiff’s hotel fell into sea.
Court of Appeal held measured duty of care was owed by
servient landowner who had actual or presumed knowledge of danger of loss of
Duty not limited to escapes from servient to the
dominant land and included nonfeasance.
Duty however depended on foreseeability.
Council here had not foreseen magnitude of risk, nor
could have done without expert survey.
Duty might extend only to warning owner of dominant
land of foreseen risk.
Furthermore, would be unfair to find liability in circumstances
where danger had been equally apparent to dominant owner.